Notice how quick you were to dismiss a real experience as proof of nothing, meanwhile some perform message board gymnastics trying to pretend history did not play out a certain way.
I merely pointed out she was citing an anecdote, and a second-hand one at that. It would be inadmissible evidence. Why? Because it doesn't prove anything relevant to the argument.
All it proves is she has a friend who says he met some people in a far-away land who knew who Kirk and Spock were. That only suggests they're familiar. It does not prove they're iconic.
The experience the member recalled is fact (unless you have evidence to render it a lie)
Now you're just piling fallacy on top of fallacy. But I'm not going to indulge any further. This is really side-stepping the topic, and I'm starting to lecture--I don't want to make
Shar angry.
Oh, for.... Another silly comparison--almost as out there as the Elmer Fudd post.
sj's Fudd analogy was a sound one. I'm sorry you didn't like it.
However, calling the Superman comparison "silly" only proves you still don't understand what an icon is.
Icons:
Each is a different image, but the vast majority of people in the world know they all mean the same thing. The person wearing it, be him/her real or drawn, is irrelevant.
If I take a pic of Karloff as the Monster, then set it next to stills of Michael Sarrazin & De Niro as the same character, and say, "which one's Frankenstein's Monster?"
Let's see how honest you are about which one will get the nod.
Aside from calling me a liar, you're basing your conclusion on a false premise.
The "iconic" Frankenstein's Monster is a derivative composite of the Dawly, Testa, and Whale films combined with various re-imagings of the period.
As such, there have been plenty of dolls, posters, paintings, etc. that are all clearly Frankenstein's monster and look nothing like Karloff specifically.
Certainly, the Whale films influenced the modern image heavily. But the traits that people associate with the Monster have nothing to do with Karloff or his face.
More to the point, I used Charlie Chaplin as an example way up-thread. How many people actually know what Chaplin looked liked?
I could post side by side pictures of Chaplin, RDJ, and the guy from the 80s IBM commercials (who I think might have even been a woman), and I bet a lot of people wouldn't be able to tell them apart. Unfortunately, I couldn't find three that were close enough to make a valid comparison without heavy photoshopping, and I didn't want to bother.
As far as the whole De Niro thing, I think most people would be able to figure it out. You don't give them enough credit.
Funny thing though, Branagh based his on the Shelly cover. It was the definitive image of Frankenstein's Monster for a century. You've just proved
Greg Cox's point.
The same applies to Shatner and Nimoy. They have cut a deep path into the road of pop culture--elevating and in some ways, transcending it,
Oh please...
Trying to think of the number of pop figures that have actually reached this level of iconic status. The Mouse and Supes have already been mentioned. Bats is close, but not quite. No other comic book hero even comes close.
The only others I could think of were Elvis and a Beatle.
Now the iconic image of Elvis is most likely "old" Elvis, and that begs the question was it created by him himself or by the last 40 years of Vegas impersonators?
And by "a Beatle," I don't mean any one specifically, but a generic composite--like one of those photoshop scramble thingies of mop-top John, Paul, and George. (Sorry Ringo.)
It has been defined, but if some wish to protect something that (more than likely) will not have TOS impact, then such things do not exist.
I have no idea what this means.
So, if Jack Black....yes that Jack Black--as is--slipped on the pointed ears, delivered his lines in a monotone voice and sported the haircut, he would be Spock, just as much as Nimoy?
Could be awesome.
People need to stop lobbying for Nimoy's ownership of a character. He has stated it's not his.
